Defendant

In addition, both the respondent A and the prosecutor of the attachment order and the respondent A and the defendant B of the attachment order, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

A1) The Defendant did not rape the victim G.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case was erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Improper sentence of the lower court (No. 1-A. as indicated in the lower judgment’s holding, 3 years and 6, and 1-1 of the lower judgment’s holding on the crime

(b) (i) 2) imprisonment with prison labor for a crime is too unreasonable;

C) Although the lower court did not pose a risk of recommitting sexual crimes against the Defendant, it was unlawful to determine the disclosure disclosure order.

2) The lower court’s determination of an attachment order for a location tracking device was unlawful, although the Defendant did not pose a risk of repeating sexual crimes.

B. Public prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court (defendant A: 1. A. as indicated in the lower judgment’s holding, Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for the crime, three years and six months, and No. 1 as indicated in the lower judgment

B. (1) 2) Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime is deemed unfair as it is too unfortunate, for each of the following reasons: 1.5 million won.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of the facts by Defendant A, the facts and circumstances admitted by the lower court are all justifiable, and the following circumstances that can be additionally known are examined, the lower court’s judgment that the Defendant raped the victim is justifiable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① At the time of committing rape in this case in 2006, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation re-Analysiss the remaining amount of genes secured in the victim’s resistance.

According to the results of the gene appraisal, the gene punishment of a man found in the amount of the victim's resistance is consistent with the gene punishment of a man found in the mouth of the defendant taken on November 1, 2016.

(2) A written reply to inquiries made on November 27, 2017 prepared by U and V by the National Scientific Investigation Institute.